Talk:Amy (Soulcalibur)

Adding a website to the links.

I have come across a great shrine to Amy Sorel. I added in confusion, and wonderd if it would be approved to be listed with the others. the website url is http://www.freewebs.com/amy_sorel Also, i would like to add that the Adorned website is not working properly. I thought that stating that it is currently not working or having it removed would be wise. Leaving it up would be good too. I thank you for your time.

Sincerly, Amy Fan

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think you're allowed to post these shrines, because it looks like you're advertising the site. Leemorrison 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

beloved rose

I am the owner of the site. i would love if the site could be listed. i have tons of images and things. If any more information is needed then comment or whatever here.--70.16.81.212 08:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh... who wrote the biography?

I don't get this sentence "She was bitten the words from those days and smiled." Cleo 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Style

Is her fighting style more original in the arcade version to differenciate her from the custom characters? Cheers! 01lander 11:27, May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've heard, Amy's, Hwang's and Li Long's style were improved in the arcade edition, in where they were "upgraded" as Standar Characters.

The thing I really wonder about that game is if they addded personal endings to these three characters. --Alexlayer 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Age

On the official website, Amy's age is listed as "unknown." (And, from her appearance, I'd say she looks closer to 14 or 15 anyway, but that is entirely subjective.) ~~~~A Pedantic Editer

Name

Amy was never officially said to be named "Amy Sorel". Her name is only listed as "Amy" on the official sites, even though other characters have their full names. And really, while Raphael did "adopt" her, I kinda doubt he did all the paperwork (not to mention he's probably not fond of his own family name by now, so I wouldn't assume he gave it to Amy). I think the page should be renamed and edited accordingly. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it just recently last 12:33, 19 May 2008, but since it appears to be unofficial as of yet, I guess it'd be better to remove it again.Logicartery (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LaAmy 004.jpg

Image:LaAmy 004.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amy's Costumes.jpg

Image:Amy's Costumes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"French Empire"

Though Amy's birthdate is not well-known, it is safe to say that she was not born after the French Revolution. Thus, this precludes her from ever being born in any French Empire in the first place. If I recall, during that time France was undergoing succession wars with England, and/or crushing Huguenots. --68.50.163.116 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References

I'm not sure how video games are considered as sources for references, but with video game characters, they're pretty much the best source aside official websites in my opinion. So now there's references in the article, and everybody should be happy.

As for the in-universe stuff, I honestly don't know what else people can do to make the article more out-of-universe (except maybe putting "in the fictional world of this videogame" into every sentence). Really, it says "video game" and "fictional" everywhere in the article already, and it would only take a complete retard to mistake this as an article of a real person.

So enough with the tags, please. Especially if you're just tagging for the fun of it and not trying to improve the article yourself. SamSandy (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability and reliable references

I think people are demanding too much from these videogame articles, and following the Wikipedia guidelines too blindly. I'll be damned if anybody can find researches or scientific on these characters, so can people please stop demanding such sources?

Questioning notability of these articles is downright silly, since were talking about main characters with enough information about them to merit an article. This is not an article about the third Goomba Mario encounters in Super Mario Bros, Amy and the others are fleshed-out characters with backgrounds, various artworks and appearances, uniqueness and such to verify their notability.

The guidelines of this site can't apply to every article indiscriminately, we have to use our common sense as well. The majority of both readers and writers want articles about video games here, so there should damn well be room for them here too. It's just impossible that they'd be as well written or well sourced as the many scientific articles. So get real. SamSandy (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability, a subject is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nothing in this article is sourced to any secondary material. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This applies to all Wikipedia articles, including those about fictional characters. This article needs out-of-universe information with references to reliable secondary sources if it is to stand. Pagrashtak 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you target this article, but leave all the other videogame character articles out of it... Or are you on a crusade to delete all videogame articles from this site? If so, you're bound to fail. The community's opinion outweighs the guidelines, and like I said, the guidelines don't (and can't) apply to every type of article in here indiscriminably (you can read that phrase from the guidelines as well). But instead of whining, tagging and threatening with deletion, why don't you actually try to improve the article if it's so sucky in your opinion? Can you even give me an example of what this "reliable secondary source" could be? Just wondering... SamSandy (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could go through a large swath of such articles, but I think starting small like this is a friendlier approach. Seeing cleanup tags on 50 articles at once tends to overwhelm, which isn't my intention. Take a breath—I'm not whining and I'm not threatening deletion. If I were pushing for deletion, you'd see a prod or AFD on the article instead of a disputed notability tag. What I'm looking for here is one of two things: either third-party sources to establish notability are found and added to the article, or the article is merged into a character list. I never said the article is "sucky", just that it doesn't have enough real-world information. Take a look at Master Chief (Halo), a featured article about a fictional character. Notice the "Character design" section, which discusses the concept and development of the character. Also check out the "Impact and reception" which covers the cultural influence of Master Chief and how critics view him. This is the kind of real-world information these character articles need. Pagrashtak 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But you can't seriously expect that every video game character article has as much information as Master Chief's! For one, I can guarantee that there are no sources discussing the importance of SC characters to the overall culture, and a character design section for someone like Amy would be mostly original research. It's like comparing an article about London to an article about Cardiff - they're both in different leagues, but both deserve their spots in here. And again, instead of just tagging what's wrong with it, try to improve the article with your own additions. In my opinion, tags are a hypocrit's way of contributing to Wikipedia - you want improvement, but aren't ready to do anything about it. SamSandy (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You say there are no reliable secondary sources to improve this article. If so, per Wikipedia policy, we should not have an article about this character. Pagrashtak 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can argue with you about this forever: articles about videogames and other fictional work aren't akin to scientific articles. You can't blindly apply all the guidelines to all the articles, you have to think with common sense. I believe most of the guidelines are decided with scientific articles in mind. But, as time has proven, the community (not just me) wants to include articles about fictional content as well to this site. So it's the guidelines that have to adapt to the will of the majority, not the other way around. Besides, I'm aware that these articles that we're arguing about are not finished or perfect, but does that mean they have to be deleted? No, they have to be improved. And you're seriously not helping with your tags and threats. SamSandy (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Okay, this is pretty much just like the old character analysis section from before. I'm removing these for the same reason people from before deleted the character analysis section. If you want to find out why, check out Taki's and Kilik's talk pages. Mythmonster2 (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When I played Soul Calibur III I found Amy to be slightly faster than custom rapier wielders. Anyone else find this? Think it's worth mentioning? Would they ask for a source?--General kaiden (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Character overview for the future

One gameplay video shows Amy as the 1P character vs. Siegfried. I noticed she's not anymore saying the one only word "Amy", instead she also says "Get lost" and probably some other words? I'd hope to see these additions in the future.--JCD ^(Talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

    I listened to that video extra carefully, I heard her say "Get lost", but I also thought I heard her say "Got It!" a few seconds before she said "get lost"

That's pretty good to hear. Now we know that Amy is more verbal now and she's bad... Joke haha. Well, let's just wait what else she would say in the game now that she's a main character this time.--JCD ^(Talk) 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vampire. Ugggh

Who keeps adding Raphael and Amy as fictional vampires??? It is popular in fan-content, but there is absolutely no evidence of it being canon. Whoever is adding it better have some good evidence or I'll continue removing them. Mythmonster2 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to log in)

Um...well, in Raphael's Critical Finish, he bites the opponent's neck...greedily. He then says he considers making them Amy's pet. ♥, Ivyluv (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That "could" probably apply to Raphael (mind the quotations) but to Amy, I don't think so for they are not directly related by blood.--JCD ^(Talk) 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

About that ancestry thing

In the weapon section, should we even mention something about it? And the British reference, it should not be detailed much further. Since those things wasn't even mentioned in any of the game however.--JCD ^(Talk) 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the sentence about it. No need to explain further about England and Britain for both Amy and Raphael have no connection with their associations and since the game doesn't reference wars either. --JCD ^(Talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop edit warring over the Critical Finishers?

I realize that a number of other Soul Calibur character pages are undergoing the same issue, but some aren't. The Critical Finisher descriptions should not be included in Wikipedia content describing a character. It is a gameplay detail that is out-of-scope of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not certain the appearance of the Critical Finisher even has any effect on how it works, gameplay-wise. These repeat additions by various user(s) seem childish, at least to me. It is akin to trying to add something 'cool' to Wikipedia, not something helpful to others. Similar actions might include trying to add descriptions of other personal favorite moves of a character, such as 'cool' unblockables or the like. That sort of information is not for Wikipedia. WikiPorc (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, right now, the articles are a complete mess, with wildly varying orders and etc. Before we think about removing these, they need to be organized and then we should start discussing it. Mythmonster2 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A minor thing on the promotion part.

Amy didn't had any "joke" weapon to be specific. She uses the weapon set of the Rapier style of Character creation although, it doesn't have a "joke" weapon in it.--JCD ^(Talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability for the article

It seems we have more resources now. And since Amy, is already a mainstream character, an article wouldn't be that bad afterall. Plus wikipedia isn't complaining ;).--JCD ^(Talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems so. Kotaku offered a very brief quip I've gotta cite too...she really needs some development notes by the designers to cite. As it stands uplike other characters she doesn't even get much in the concept art department x_o--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)